Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2022 Jun 28:11:e76070.
doi: 10.7554/eLife.76070.

US women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer: a cross-sectional population-based observational study

Diane M Harper  1   2   3 , Melissa Plegue  1 , Masahito Jimbo  1   4 , Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin  1 , Ananda Sen  1   5
Affiliations
Observational Study

US women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer: a cross-sectional population-based observational study

Diane M Harper et al. Elife. .

Abstract

Background: Using screen counts, women 50-64 years old have lower cancer screening rates for cervical and colorectal cancers (CRC) than all other age ranges. This paper aims to present woman-centric cervical cancer and CRC screenings to determine the predictor of being up-to-date for both.

Methods: We used the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), an annual survey to guide health policy in the United States, to explore the up-to-date status of dual cervical cancer and CRC screening for women 50-64 years old. We categorized women into four mutually exclusive categories: up-to-date for dual-screening, each single screen, or neither screen. We used multinomial multivariate regression modeling to evaluate the predictors of each category.

Results: Among women ages 50-64 years old, dual-screening was reported for 58.2% (57.1-59.4), cervical cancer screening alone (27.1% (26.0-28.2)), CRC screening alone (5.4% (4.9-5.9)), and neither screen (9.3% (8.7-9.9)). Age, race, education, income, and chronic health conditions were significantly associated with dual-screening compared to neither screen. Hispanic women compared to non-Hispanic White women were more likely to be up-to-date with cervical cancer screening than dual-screening (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.39 (1.10, 1.77)). Compared to younger women, those 60-64 years are significantly more likely to be up-to-date with CRC screening than dual-screening (aOR = 1.75 (1.30, 2.35)).

Conclusions: Screening received by each woman shows a much lower rate of dual-screening than prior single cancer screening rates. Addressing dual-screening strategies rather than single cancer screening programs for women 50-64 years may increase both cancer screening rates.

Funding: This work was supported by NIH through the Michigan Institute for Clinical and61 Health Research UL1TR002240 and by NCI through The University of Michigan Rogel Cancer62 Center P30CA046592 grants.

Keywords: cervical cancer; colorectal cancer; human; medicine; primary care; self-sampling.

Plain language summary

Routine screenings for cervical and colorectal cancers save lives by detecting cancers at an early stage when they are more treatable and more likley to cure. Most cancer screening in the United States is focused on single cancer screening programs, often held at community health fairs, pop-up screening vans and other settings, without coordination with the individuals’ primary care doctors. This is problematic because the primary care physician cannot counsel if the results are abnormal and advise when the next routine screen is appropriate. This leads to gaps in women not being informed that they are due for routine screening and gaps to act on any abnormal screening results. This is especially problematic for women aged 50 to 64, who are less likely to screen for either cancer alone compared to other age groups. Currently, 86% of women in the United States are up to date with cervical cancer screening, and 64% are up to date with colorectal cancer screening. However, it is not clear how many women in this age group receive both screens, compared to a single screen or neither screen. Harper et al. analyzed data from over 40,000 women aged 50 to 64, collected in a United States health survey in 2018. This study revealed that only 59% of the women reported being up to date with cervical and colorectal cancer screenings. Compared to women who did not screen at all, women completing both screens were more educated, had higher incomes, and were more likely to have other chronic conditions such as arthritis, diabetes, depression and other cancers. These findings reveal that the number of women aged 50 to 64 in the United States, who are up to date with both cancer screenings, is still well below national targets. Harper et al. propose that shifting towards a women-centric focus, with primary care physicians or health care systems responsible for managing screening efforts, could decrease cancer incidence and mortality. In future, self-test kits for both cancers should help encourage more women to have both screens in a comfortable environment. This change in focus will also allow primary care physicians to notify women at appropriate intervals to attend routine screening and immediate follow-ups in the case of abnormal results.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

DH Deputy Editor, eLife, MP, MJ, SS, AS No competing interests declared

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Graphical abstract.
Screening rates differ by calculation approach. A patient-centered approach considers the total number of screens each woman has, whereas a population-centered system documents each single test completion. Our data show much lower women-centered cervical cancer and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates than a population-based screening approach. This difference is especially relevant as women may be able to do these two cancer screenings at home by themselves.
Appendix 1—figure 1.
Appendix 1—figure 1.. Consort diagram.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Anderson J, Bourne D, Peterson K, Mackey K. Evidence Brief: Accuracy of Self-report for Cervical and Breast Cancer Screening. Washington DC: Department of Veterans Affairs (US); 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539386/ - PubMed
    1. Bakr O, Afsar-Manesh N, Raja N, Dermenchyan A, Goldstein NJ, Shu SB, May FP. Application of Behavioral Economics Principles Improves Participation in Mailed Outreach for Colorectal Cancer Screening. Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology. 2020;11:e00115. doi: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000115. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2019 Codebook. 2019. [August 31, 2020]. https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/annual_data/2019/pdf/codebook19_llcp-v2-508.HTML
    1. BlueCross Blue Shield of Texas BlueCross Blue Shield of Texas. 2020. [August 13, 2020]. https://www.bcbstx.com/newsroom/category/collaborative-care/home-testing...
    1. Bonafede MM, Miller JD, Pohlman SK, Troeger KA, Sprague BL, Herschorn SD, Winer IH. Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Patterns Among Women With Medicaid and Commercial Insurance. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2019;57:394–402. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.04.010. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types